Well Milan, I\'ve looked at the night photos on your website, and my comments were not directed at the kind of technique you are using which is more \"old school\" than the extreme comp work I am referring to.
What I was referring to were comps mixing day and night, achieving very striking results because the DR obtained is ordinarily, both visually and photographically, impossible. Sort of like HDR really.
Perhaps I should just get used to the day/night photo mixes in the same way that I am used to seeing fisheye/tobacco filters/infra red photos.
This really goes to the meaning of photography. Nothing wrong with comping up two exposures of the same scene taken in the same conditions because in a way all you are doing is dealing with current sensors lack of DR. You are not \"faking\" a scene. Now I am aware that my use of the word \"faking\" is controversial as extreme comping goes back to victorian times, but I am uncomfortable with the whole topic.
BTW there is no link between the quality of photography and what ISO is used. IMHO some of the best photos ever taken are grainy. If fine grain is your bag that is great, but there is no presumption that good photography is free of noise/grain, or even totally in focus for that matter:
Some night images of what I mean, as examples of great images that are \"noisy\" and \"unsharp\" ie moody, dealing specifically with Milan\'s point:
Well Milan, I\'ve looked at the night photos on your website, and my comments were not directed at the kind of technique you are using which is more \"old school\" than the extreme comp work I am referring to.
What I was referring to were comps mixing day and night, achieving very striking results because the DR obtained is ordinarily, both visually and photographically, impossible. Sort of like HDR really.
Perhaps I should just get used to the day/night photo mixes in the same way that I am used to seeing fisheye/tobacco filters/infra red photos.
This really goes to the meaning of photography. Nothing wrong with comping up two exposures of the same scene taken in the same conditions because in a way all you are doing is dealing with current sensors lack of DR. You are not \"faking\" a scene. Now I am aware that my use of the word \"faking\" is controversial as extreme comping goes back to victorian times, but I am uncomfortable with the whole topic.
BTW there is no link between the quality of photography and what ISO is used. IMHO some of the best photos ever taken are grainy. If fine grain is your bag that is great, but there is no presumption that good photography is free of noise/grain, or even totally in focus for that matter:
Some night images of what I mean, as examples of great images that are \"noisy\" and \"unsharp\" ie moody:
Well Milan, I\'ve looked at the night photos on your website, and my comments were not directed at the kind of technique you are using which is more \"old school\" than the extreme comp work I am referring to.
What I was referring to were comps mixing day and night, achieving very striking results because the DR obtained is ordinarily, both visually and photographically, impossible. Sort of like HDR really.
Perhaps I should just get used to the day/night photo mixes in the same way that I am used to seeing fisheye/tobacco filters/infra red photos.
This really goes to the meaning of photography. Nothing wrong with comping up two exposures of the same scene taken in the same conditions because in a way all you are doing is dealing with current sensors lack of DR. You are not \"faking\" a scene. Now I am aware that my use of the word \"faking\" is controversial as extreme comping goes back to victorian times, but I am uncomfortable with the whole topic.
BTW there is no link between the quality of photography and what ISO is used. IMHO some of the best photos ever taken are grainy. If fine grain is your bag that is great, but there is no presumption that good photography is free of noise/grain, or even totally in focus for that matter:
Some night images of what I mean, as examples of great images that are \"noisy\" and \"unsharp\" ie moody:
Well Milan, I\'ve looked at the night photos on your website, and my comments were not directed at the kind of technique you are using which is more \"old school\" than the extreme comp work I am referring to.
What I was referring to were comps mixing day and night, achieving very striking results because the DR obtained is ordinarily, both visually and photographically, impossible. Sort of like HDR really.
Perhaps I should just get used to the day/night photo mixes in the same way that I am used to seeing fisheye/tobacco filters/infra red photos.
This really goes to the meaning of photography. Nothing wrong with comping up two exposures of the same scene taken in the same conditions because in a way all you are doing is dealing with current sensors lack of DR. You are not \"faking\" a scene. Now I am aware that my use of the word \"faking\" is controversial as extreme comping goes back to victorian times, but I am uncomfortable with the whole topic.
BTW there is no link between the quality of photography and what ISO is used. IMHO some of the best photos ever taken are grainy. If fine grain is your bag that is great, but there is no presumption that good photography is free of noise/grain, or even totally in focus for that matter:
